
Test Methodology and Conditions:-
1. K-x on Tripod, Single AF mode, Central Single AF point selected, 2 second Timer with MLU;
2. Focal Lengths were tested as marked on the lenses, Av Exposure mode (and of course), Matrix Metering, No Exposure Compensation;
3. Portrait Custom Image -1, 0, 0, 0, Sharpness 0, AWB;
4. All images are resized to 3,999 pixels in width and no other re-touching is made to the images, All EXIF data preserved. Click Any of the Thumbnails will download the Large Size Image in a New Tab/Window. (Note: All Large Files!)
How to Measurbate, then? Download the Large Files and inspect the image centre and borders, note about contrast and sharpness, colour differences, distortion of the images and so on. Compare against one and each other(s) for the same/near focal length and see the effect of different apertures on the output Image Quality.
I do not test f/11 for all lenses as it is almost for sure that f/11 will not be as sharp as the diffraction limit is usually reached for APS-C DSLRs. My advice is that if you want to stop down, usually don't go beyond f/9.5 for optimal image quality! And, dust specks, if any, are more visible from f/11 and onwards, too.
Well, which lens(es) do I like more or most? Umm.., I think putting aside the different range and the physical characteristics of them (e.g., size and weight, design and operation, etc.), I would rate: FA 24-90 > DA 16-45 > FAJ 18-35 > SA 18-55 ~ DAL 18-55, as long as IQ is concerned, overall speaking.
Interestingly, according to Bojidar Dimitrov's K-mount Page, the optical formulae of the DAL 18-55 is the same as that of the DA 18-55II, whilst my "Samsung" Blue Ring SA 18-55 is the same as the original Pentax DA 18-55. So, my this comparison should show what are the actual difference(s) between the two optical formulae on the Image Quality, if any. But do bear in mind about sample variation as well for those cheapo kit lenses (of which the QC is not really good from my experiences).
What do you think, on the other hand? :-)
Read Also:-
Lens Matching with My Navy K-x
Jarda · 785 weeks ago
Alexander Evensen · 785 weeks ago
Michael A. · 784 weeks ago
Contrary to this shootout, my FA24-90 had way too pronounced CA's and had been returned (made in T. - perhaps sample to sample variations).
However, the DA16-45 is a great walk-around performer (used $215)...
joe · 784 weeks ago
Studio comparison would be better.
RiceHigh 110p · 784 weeks ago
Precise, accurate and stringent alignments are actually required for testing near targets. Unless properly setup and alignments are professionally made, the test errors could be more than the internal mis-alignments and aberration of the lens' elements within a lens!
DoF is another factor come into play and so does the focusing accuracy. So, for near targets, the affecting factors are much more, which should be carefully eliminated for the possible errors that are involved.
As people seldom test lenses systematically for infinity objects, I do it this time! (Just imagine that the building crowds as the lens test chart and patterns!)
Michael A. · 784 weeks ago
Further more, the sample of FA24-90 I received (all made in T.) was substandard to DA16-45 as well - VERY pronounced CA's (misalignment?). So contrary to this shootout, no keeper at all.
Therefore, DA16-45mm seems most desirable choice as a value...sharp@good bokeh/CA's can be easily pre-corrected in new bodies/NO focusing problem/compatible with ALL digital bodies/great price used (mine was $215)
Larseric Fjellman · 784 weeks ago
Larseric Fjellman, www.fjellmans.se
Yarda · 784 weeks ago
Anyway nice comparison and testing target is quite good for judging differences.
RiceHigh 110p · 784 weeks ago